Motion of No Confidence in Canada (Harper isn't going)

[Enigma]

Yup, the Cons are guaranteed a majority with the NDP being the Opposition Party.

Cons 166
NDP 103
Libs 34
Bloc 4
Green 1

[Uraniun235]

dont worry, a centrist party will pop up. either the ndp will move towards the centre, or the libs will make a resurgence. it'll take a couple of elections though.

Yeah, or they'll just keep stubbornly fucking it all up and let the conservatives shift the national spectrum to the right. It's not like the political views of a country's population are immutable.

[Coop D'etat]

Twice now Harper has won by pre-emptive negative campaigning against a new Liberal party leader that did not have time to establish themselves as a national brand reflecting how hard it is to define yourself if your opponent has already defined you in the eyes of the electorate. One advantage of a Conservative majority for them is that they will have time to re-orient and rebuild the party rather than rushing to be prepared for an election which might come at anytime. Building a effective grassroots structure will be of vital importance, they've long been without one as they've been able to rely on the central organization. The socially left, economically centrist position that they've long occupied is typically a winning one with Canadians and being in the center of position in the political debate means that you can rise fast by drawing support of of both flanks at once. Getting people excited about them again will be the big thing.

Layton pandered hard to the Quebec nationalist crowd by both supporting their contriversial bill 101 language law and talking about reopening consitutional talks for Quebec, defeating the Bloc by co-opting their platform. Since this was done in French and the media weren't focused on the NDP they managed this without lossing the rest of the country by the rest of the country not knowing about it. The late NDP surge at the expense of the Bloq seems to have caused the left wing of the Liberal party to defect to Layton, leading to the best week the NDP has ever had. Now the question is whether they can hold Quebec for the long term and prevent the resurgence of the Bloc will be interesting. The upshot is that while there has been a federalist victory by the effective elimination of the last regionalist party, it has come at the cost of having a decentralizing party in power with an even stronger decentralizing party in official opposition. However, I still hope than Harper's essential nature as a control freak will trump ideology and short out most efforts to devolve more powers to the provinces.

The best week Layton has ever had also handed complete control of parliment to his nemesis Harper. Harper barely gained any ground in popular support to get his majority. The win is due to the defection of Liberal supporters to the NDP in Liberal/Conservative battleground riddings giving Harper the seats he needed for victory. A strange week ends the era of minority governments that's lasted 7 years, the first Conservative majority since Mulroney's epic collapse of the Progressive Conservative party in 93 and the first time also since 93 that there has not been a major regional party in Parliament.

[SCRawl]

The Quebec analyst on the CBC had it right last night, I think: by going orange in such huge numbers, Quebec will once again have essentially no voice in federal government. They're in love with Layton, and have dismissed the Bloc (which was offensive to me anyway), and that's fine, but if Layton can't provide an effective voice from his new and prominent pulpit as Leader of the Opposition, four years from now there will have to be a new sheriff in town.

As for the reasons for the new Conservative victory, I can only think that the Ontario ridings were so afraid of a Layton-led coalition that they were frightened into voting blue. They're going to need an industrial-strength opener for all the cans of worms Harper will be getting into.

[Coop D'etat]

The Quebec analyst on the CBC had it right last night, I think: by going orange in such huge numbers, Quebec will once again have essentially no voice in federal government. They're in love with Layton, and have dismissed the Bloc (which was offensive to me anyway), and that's fine, but if Layton can't provide an effective voice from his new and prominent pulpit as Leader of the Opposition, four years from now there will have to be a new sheriff in town.

As for the reasons for the new Conservative victory, I can only think that the Ontario ridings were so afraid of a Layton-led coalition that they were frightened into voting blue. They're going to need an industrial-strength opener for all the cans of worms Harper will be getting into.

The really interesting thing is that not only does Quebec have no voice but they also have no leverage. Harper finally took enough seats in Ontario to get his majority without them. Previous Quebec-less Conservative governments were minorities that needed the support of other parties, one of which was often the PQ. How that falls out will be interesting to say the least.

The other thing is how the Bloq handles a full term in exile. Do they atrophy outside of Ottawa causing the sovriegntist movement to focus solely on the provincial government. Or do they manage to position themselves to retake their customary 35-50 seats in the next election.

[Magis]

They're going to need an industrial-strength opener for all the cans of worms Harper will be getting into.

Keep in mind that despite his faults, Harper is a master political strategist. I don't think he would do anything so controversial as to jeopardize the re-election of his party four years from now.

For years people have been criticizing him for governing as though he had a majority. If that is true, then we shouldn't expect anything to change, and so far he has actually implemented a rather moderate set of policies.

[aerius]

For years people have been criticizing him for governing as though he had a majority. If that is true, then we shouldn't expect anything to change, and so far he has actually implemented a rather moderate set of policies.

I hope you're right and he keeps doing what he's doing or only a bit worse. I don't like it but can live with it. But we're in deep shit if he lets the majority government power get to his head and pulls out the old Reform party platform. Let's all hope he doesn't do that, cause that would seriously fuck things up.

[Phantasee]

And this too shall pass. No worries, like I said to Kendall already, if he does even a quarter of the shady shit supposedly on his secret agenda, he'll be out next election or back to minority. Which means he'll be out as leader anyway.

And it's not like he's going to do something completely irreversible, we aren't the US. If he does something stupid like the Bush tax cuts, the next party in power isn't going to be as scared of reversing them as the Dems. Four years doesn't completely ruin a country.

I'm pretty happy we kept a spot of orange in Edmonton, at least we won't be completely ignored (for better or for worse).

In other news, the map of Canada is blue and orange. Oilers fans are rejoicing in this clear sign from God.

[Enigma]

Its official, both Ignatieff and Duceppe will be stepping down as party leaders.

[open_sketchbook]

Yay greens got a seat. I could care less about the overall results; the party that makes their point using charts and rational debate instead of wharblegobbling and grandstanding got a seat. Hooray!

[Temjin]

Wow. That was a really disappointing result. I was expecting Harper to still be PM, due to the Conservative's early start on the attack ads and Iggy's general unelectability, but I was at least hoping they would be held down to a minority.

Locally, I'm kind of pissed that (Liberal) Keven Lamourex got re-elected over (NDP) Rebecca Blaikie. Having recently recieved an inside look at the Manitoba Liberals, they're still pretty damn corrupt.

[Drooling Iguana]

And this too shall pass. No worries, like I said to Kendall already, if he does even a quarter of the shady shit supposedly on his secret agenda, he'll be out next election or back to minority. Which means he'll be out as leader anyway.

He'll be out regardless. He was elected to fix the economy, which he won't do if he sticks to his far-right policies (robbing the poor to feed the rich has never worked and isn't going to start working now,) and if he abandons them he'll alienate his base.

He won't be able to distract the country with threats of frequent elections and coalitions anymore. From now on, he's got to succeed on his own merits.

[blahface]

The only reason conservatives won was because the ridiculous first-past-the-post voting system. The left should build a coalition in which the primary objective is to replace first-past-the-post.

[Koolaidkirby]

The only reason conservatives won was because the ridiculous first-past-the-post voting system. The left should build a coalition in which the primary objective is to replace first-past-the-post.

agreed, with multiple viable parties I'd like to see one of those "pick your first two choices" style voting system, I cant remember the actual name of it though.

[Magis]

He was elected to fix the economy, which he won't do if he sticks to his far-right policies (robbing the poor to feed the rich has never worked and isn't going to start working now,) and if he abandons them he'll alienate his base.

And how exactly has he been "robbing the poor"? He lowered the GST, a move that disproportionately benefits the poor, and he increased the basic personal amount for tax exemption which also disproportionately benefits the poor.

He also made fellowships and scholarships tax free, which is an enormous benefit to students - especially graduate students whose salaries are almost entirely classified as scholarships, and who are generally some of the poorest adults out there.

[SCRawl]

He was elected to fix the economy, which he won't do if he sticks to his far-right policies (robbing the poor to feed the rich has never worked and isn't going to start working now,) and if he abandons them he'll alienate his base.

And how exactly has he been "robbing the poor"? He lowered the GST, a move that disproportionately benefits the poor, and he increased the basic personal amount for tax exemption which also disproportionately benefits the poor.

He also made fellowships and scholarships tax free, which is an enormous benefit to students - especially graduate students whose salaries are almost entirely classified as scholarships, and who are generally some of the poorest adults out there.

He also cut corporate tax rates several times, and then, guess what? He ran up the largest deficit (in absolute terms) in Canadian history. Someone's going to have to pay that piper, and it isn't going to be the rich guys. I am confident that the Conservatives can turn things around and get back into a surplus position, to start paying that debt down again. I am not so confident that they will.

[Fiji_Fury]

A disappointing result when 39.6% of those who voted supported the Conservative Party, yet the Cons hold 54% of the seats in the House of Commons. On the up side... "stability." I heard Jason Kenney (Calgary South-East) yesterday say on CBC radio that it was good a majority now exists: The Conservatives can finally get on to "thinking and planning."

I am frustrated at these results, yet there are several things that stand out here as lessons for the federal parties:
1) Attack Ads work - they framed Ignatief before he could establish himself. What a piss-off. Propaganada will continue to play a major/increasing role in future campaigns.
2) Liberals - not popular because of the color, or the history. If they want support from Canadians they should damn well stake out some clear positions that are definitive improvements over the Conservative Party. In the past month, they did not succeed in doing so.
3) Harper is a masterful political strategist - this is unlikely to change just because he has a majority government, so the other parties had better get their shit together.
4) A significant portion of Canadians (though not a majority) do not share outrage over Harper's contempt of Parliament and propensity for autocratic decision making. Terrible though this is, it wasn't an effective leading criticism of the man or his party.
5) Only about 62% of eligible voters actually voted. Where the hell were the other 38%? Effectively mobilizing portions of that apathetic electorate could dramatically shift election results. Not that it will be easy.

[Magis]

He also cut corporate tax rates several times, and then, guess what? He ran up the largest deficit (in absolute terms) in Canadian history. Someone's going to have to pay that piper, and it isn't going to be the rich guys. I am confident that the Conservatives can turn things around and get back into a surplus position, to start paying that debt down again. I am not so confident that they will.

"The largest debt in history" might make a good talking point, but as you stated that's only in absolute dollars, which makes the figure entirely irrelevant. On a per-GDP basis, the deficit isn't nearly as bad as those seen under Trudeau or Mulroney. Also, debt by itself is not a bad thing; it's the interest on debt that can make it not worth having. The deficits of the last few years have been at an interest rate of nearly zero. Given that many (not all) of the stimulus projects have been infrastructure-based and had to be done sooner or later, borrowing the money at ~1% isn't such a bad thing. Since the rest of the deficit was due to plunging tax receipts and employment insurance payouts, I'm not sure what else people would expect.

Also, the claim that the corporate tax cuts (which the Liberals not only supported, but wanted to accelerate) will result in a long-term decrease in tax revenue is debatable at best and dubious at worse. Several published analyses of the short-term cost of those cuts have indicated that the Liberal/NDP estimate of ~$6 billion loss in revenue is totally out to lunch.

[Dillon]

He was elected to fix the economy, which he won't do if he sticks to his far-right policies (robbing the poor to feed the rich has never worked and isn't going to start working now,) and if he abandons them he'll alienate his base.

And how exactly has he been "robbing the poor"? He lowered the GST, a move that disproportionately benefits the poor, and he increased the basic personal amount for tax exemption which also disproportionately benefits the poor.

He also made fellowships and scholarships tax free, which is an enormous benefit to students - especially graduate students whose salaries are almost entirely classified as scholarships, and who are generally some of the poorest adults out there.

http://cupe.ca/child-care/Harpers_1_billion_ch

I guess the billion he spent on security for the G20 summit had to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, it did not come from his corporate tax cuts. No, the struggling families that rely on government support will be paying it instead.

[Magis]

I guess the billion he spent on security for the G20 summit had to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, it did not come from his corporate tax cuts. No, the struggling families that rely on government support will be paying it instead.

This would make sense if your definition of "robbing the poor" is "any government expenditure". Weather you think the security costs were justified or not, it is certainly not a program that was robbing the poor while enriching the wealthy. It was an expenditure like any other expenditure, which will ultimately be paid for by a variety of revenue sources, most of which are disproportionately levied against the wealthy.

It also seems as though you believe that any tax cut that doesn't specifically target the poor is therefore an exploitation of the poor. Leaving aside the fact that Harper has already implemented several tax cuts that do benefit the poor more than anyone else (and bearing in mind that those cuts were opposed at every turn by the Liberals and NDP), exactly how high would you like the corporate rate to be? I'm assuming you don't subscribe to an arbitrary "higher is better" approach in which you'd like to see it at 90+ %. So, what shall it be? 30%? 40%? Personally, I think it makes sense that our corporate rate be a bit lower than our competition both in the United States and Europe. Given that our rate is sitting at about middle-of-the-road compared to other G20 nations, and given that many of those governments have also recently expressed an intention to lower their corporate rates as well, the prospect of raising ours seems unwise.

[SCRawl]

He also cut corporate tax rates several times, and then, guess what? He ran up the largest deficit (in absolute terms) in Canadian history. Someone's going to have to pay that piper, and it isn't going to be the rich guys. I am confident that the Conservatives can turn things around and get back into a surplus position, to start paying that debt down again. I am not so confident that they will.

"The largest debt in history" might make a good talking point, but as you stated that's only in absolute dollars, which makes the figure entirely irrelevant.

Which is why I said "in absolute terms" in my post.

Also, the claim that the corporate tax cuts (which the Liberals not only supported, but wanted to accelerate) will result in a long-term decrease in tax revenue is debatable at best and dubious at worse. Several published analyses of the short-term cost of those cuts have indicated that the Liberal/NDP estimate of ~$6 billion loss in revenue is totally out to lunch.

Part of that isn't true: the Liberals wanted corporate tax rates to go back to 18%, whereas the Conservatives wanted them to continue to drop from their current rate of 16.5% down to 15%.

[Next of Kin]

Meet Professor Iggy

Wait, I thought that Darth Harper assured us that Ignatieff would be moving back to the US when he was finished with politics....after all he was "just visiting."

[Magis]

Part of that isn't true: the Liberals wanted corporate tax rates to go back to 18%, whereas the Conservatives wanted them to continue to drop from their current rate of 16.5% down to 15%.

With the Liberal party, that really depends on the time of day, it seems.

"We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012." - Liberal press release, June 19, 2008

“We will cut corporate taxes again” - Michael Ignatieff, Liberal.ca, May 16, 2010

Ignatieff only pulled a reversal on corporate tax rates because he thought it would make a good wedge issue during an election.

Wait, I thought that Darth Harper assured us that Ignatieff would be moving back to the US when he was finished with politics....after all he was "just visiting."

That speculation was a result of what Ignatieff said when he first announced his candidacy for a seat in Parliament.

“If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back,” Ignatieff said. “I love teaching here, and I hope I’ll be back in some shape or form.” - Michael Ignatieff in an interview, as reported in the Harvard Crimson.

Granted, he didn't say that we would leave if not achieving PM, but he certainly gave a clear indication that, at the time, he had little intention of remaining in Canada if he wasn't elected to sit in the House of Commons.

[Next of Kin]

...and like you said was based on speculation.